You didn't notice my earlier post where I am well aware of which agency has domain over wildlife management. I am not aware of any group who wants to take away hunters rights, but animal welfare advocates (and I consider myself one) would like to curtail those trapping activities and hunting activities which are inhumane (meaning no quick kill). Everything isn't good about "heritage". Kentucky has THE worst ranking in animal welfare in the country. But, I am pretty sure I am speaking to a brick wall here. It may be shocking and a surprise to many Kentuckians that everyone doesn't think like they do.

 

Who creates those rankings, and where can I find info on them?

Who creates those rankings, and where can I find info on them?

 

 

Since your google command is obviously broken (not your real point I suspect) I will provide one of the links. Of course it is animal welfare organizations...this one the Humane Society of the US...but, what benefit is it to them that Kentucky is worse than any other state? Answer, none, the result is based on the environment of the state towards the humane treatment of animals.

 

The HSUS Releases 2011 Ranking of State Animal Protection Laws : The Humane Society of the United States

Since your google command is obviously broken (not your real point I suspect) I will provide one of the links. Of course it is animal welfare organizations...this one the Humane Society of the US...but, what benefit is it to them that Kentucky is worse than any other state? Answer, none, the result is based on the environment of the state towards the humane treatment of animals.

 

The HSUS Releases 2011 Ranking of State Animal Protection Laws : The Humane Society of the United States

 

I was just asking the question...and I had searched Google.

Looks like we are only 8th worse, not THE worst :ylsuper: LINK

 

Seriously, those rankings are based "on a wide range of animal protection laws, including animal cruelty codes, equine protection standards, wildlife issues, animals in research and farm animal policy"

 

Most of those areas of concern have nothing to do with the topic of this discussion, with the exception of "wildlife issues". What specific wildlife issues did they rate and what weight did it hold in the overall ranking? And what areas does KY fall short in "wildlife issues"?

Looks like we're ranked last on the list created by the Animal Legal Defense Fund. They cite the following:

 

• Felony provision available only for cruelty against select animals
  
• No felony provisions for extreme neglect or abandonment
  
• Inadequate definitions/standards of basic care
  
• Principal protections apply only to select types of animals
  
• No mental health evaluations or counseling for offenders
  
• No cost mitigation & recovery provisions for impounded animals (e.g. cost-of-care bonds, other reimbursement of costs, liens, restitution provisions)
  
• No forfeiture of abused animals
  
• No restrictions on future ownership or possession of animals following a conviction
  
• Veterinarians are prohibited from reporting suspected cruelty or fighting
  
• No provisions for select non-animal-related agencies/professionals to report suspected animal abuse
  
• Inadequate humane agent provisions and no duty on peace officers to enforce animal protection laws
  
• No separate crime for the sexual assault of an animal
  
• No statutory authority to allow protective orders to include animals
  
• Inadequate animal fighting provisions
  

 

The way I see it, the list of reasons they give for ranking Kentucky so low has little-to-nothing to do with right to fish and hunt. There are some items - particularly the two items above that I've bolded - that I would see having some relevance to the department of fish and wildlife, but otherwise, I see the majority of these complaints having to do with criminal activity, and would thereby place them under police authority. Am I missing something?

We would need clarification on the two you bolded even before we could decide if they apply to game laws or not. Both are pretty gray in the way they are written.

We would need clarification on the two you bolded even before we could decide if they apply to game laws or not. Both are pretty gray in the way they are written.

 

Agreed. It's their gray-ness that I think could currently make them potentially pertinent to game laws. Otherwise, as I said, the list seems more or less to be something more aimed at criminal activity rather than fishing, hunting, and wildlife activity.

 

Doomer, for what it's worth, I'm not trying to say that I'm against the humane treatment of animals, because that's not the case at all. I just don't see this amendment as anything that really impacts the issues you're bringing up. I think they're apples and oranges.

Looks like we're ranked last on the list created by the Animal Legal Defense Fund. They cite the following:

 

 

 

The way I see it, the list of reasons they give for ranking Kentucky so low has little-to-nothing to do with right to fish and hunt. There are some items - particularly the two items above that I've bolded - that I would see having some relevance to the department of fish and wildlife, but otherwise, I see the majority of these complaints having to do with criminal activity, and would thereby place them under police authority. Am I missing something?

 

Thanks for the link, and you are right, most animal rights people are not challenging the right to hunt or fish, but do challenge some of the methods, especially types of trapping and bow hunting for large game. You are right as well, it is not the hunting/fishing laws that cause KY to be so low, it is the laws in place that allow law enforcement and the courts to deal with cruelty issues. Sorry I misunderstood your question!

If one breath you say they aren't attacking hunting then say they are challenging methods. They are one in the same. They attack bow hunting, next it will be rifles and shotguns. Anyone that believes PETA and HSUS wouldn't love to make hunting illegal is a fool. Just for kicks and giggles, why are they against now hunting for large game.

If one breath you say they aren't attacking hunting then say they are challenging methods. They are one in the same. They attack bow hunting' date=' next it will be rifles and shotguns. Anyone that believes PETA and HSUS wouldn't love to make hunting illegal is a fool. Just for kicks and giggles, why are they against now hunting for large game.[/quote']

 

I totally believe that PETA and HSUS would like to make hunting/trapping/fishing illegal. But to think that there aren't some methods used now which are cruel is pretty naive too (not saying bow hunting is one of them).

I totally believe that PETA and HSUS would like to make hunting/trapping/fishing illegal. But to think that there aren't some methods used now which are cruel is pretty naive too (not saying bow hunting is one of them).

 

True. But neither PETA or HSUS put a petition to stop hunting, but HSUS does not want it to be more difficult to ban what are ultimately agreed to be inhumane measures (meaning those causing unnecessary pain and suffering). Now, I understand that there are still people who frankly don't give a care about animal cruelty (and some who don't care about people cruelty for that matter), but the norms on this topic for society have changed.

 

Just another point...before hunting and fishing became regulated, with much of the credit going to the wildlife management of the Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife...I wonder how many people realize deer were almost hunted to extinction in Kentucky and many parts of North America? So I am not against the system, but I would like to assure that they are as concerned about all species as much as they are with the ones that people like to hunt.

I totally believe that PETA and HSUS would like to make hunting/trapping/fishing illegal. But to think that there aren't some methods used now which are cruel is pretty naive too (not saying bow hunting is one of them).

Look, I'm not a fan of trapping but it's the old slippery slope.

True. But neither PETA or HSUS put a petition to stop hunting, but HSUS does not want it to be more difficult to ban what are ultimately agreed to be inhumane measures (meaning those causing unnecessary pain and suffering). Now, I understand that there are still people who frankly don't give a care about animal cruelty (and some who don't care about people cruelty for that matter), but the norms on this topic for society have changed.

 

Just another point...before hunting and fishing became regulated, with much of the credit going to the wildlife management of the Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife...I wonder how many people realize deer were almost hunted to extinction in Kentucky and many parts of North America? So I am not against the system, but I would like to assure that they are as concerned about all species as much as they are with the ones that people like to hunt.

It seems you are confused. I don't know any hunters that don't demand regulation of our wildlife. PETA and HSUS don't want just regulation. And I'll ask again, what is the problem with bow hunting large game?

It seems you are confused. I don't know any hunters that don't demand regulation of our wildlife. PETA and HSUS don't want just regulation. And I'll ask again, what is the problem with bow hunting large game?

 

Sorry..I didn't see the question before. The argument is that with bow-hunting a hit is seldom quickly fatal. It takes some time for the animal to bleed out, and the animal suffers for some time, and the game is not always found by the hunter. Is that argument valid?

Sorry..I didn't see the question before. The argument is that with bow-hunting a hit is seldom quickly fatal. It takes some time for the animal to bleed out, and the animal suffers for some time, and the game is not always found by the hunter. Is that argument valid?

 

I am not confused, but maybe I didn't make my points clearly. When I stated that Deer were nearly hunted to extinction, maybe I omitted that creation of agencies to regulate and oversee hunting and fishing are almost fully responsible for their population recovery. I am not against these agencies, and I wouldn't dream of challenging a person's right to hunt or fish. I would only try to move hunters in the direction of using methods that are the most humane.

 

My concern with Department of Wildlife having total control would be if their entire focus became only to preserve game animals but not consideration of the total balance of wildlife.